๐ Key Judicial Recommendations & Guidelines
1️⃣ Malgonkar Committee (1972) (Referred by SC)
Recommended structured sentencing guidelines to reduce disparities — but never formally adopted.
2️⃣ Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000)
Court stressed the need for balancing reformation, deterrence, and proportionality — punishment must reflect both the crime and the criminal.
3️⃣ Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
Supreme Court emphasized structured sentencing guidelines to prevent arbitrary decisions and ensure uniformity across cases.
4️⃣ State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008)
Highlighted the doctrine of proportionality — sentencing must not be excessively harsh or grossly lenient.
5️⃣ Santan Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
Underlined the importance of individualized sentencing — background, mental state, and possibility of reform must be weighed carefully.
6️⃣ Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
Called for a sentencing policy framework to assist judges in making fair, balanced, and consistent decisions.
๐จ Law Commission of India (262nd Report, 2015)
Recommended:
-
Abolishing the death penalty except in terrorism cases.
-
Establishing statutory sentencing guidelines.
-
Creating a sentencing commission to aid courts.
๐ Global Models Considered
-
UK Sentencing Guidelines Council: Provides clear guidance on ranges of punishment.
-
US Sentencing Commission: Issues federal sentencing guidelines.
Indian courts have occasionally referred to these models when suggesting reforms.
๐ก Key Principles Courts Want Integrated
✅ Proportionality
✅ Deterrence balanced with reformation
✅ Consistency across cases
✅ Transparency in reasoning
No comments:
Post a Comment